* > 20 && * %% 5 used in grep seems wrong, does is equal to a WhateverCode lambda that takes 2 arguments? As this explain on SO
> my #a = 1,12,15,20,25,30,35,37;
> #a.grep: * > 20 && * %% 5 # The result seems strange, expected (25 30 35)
(15 20 25 30 35)
> #a.grep: * %% 5 && * > 20
(25 30 35 37)
> #a.grep: { $_>20 && $_ %% 5 }
(25 30 35)
> #a.grep: all(* > 20, * %% 5)
(25 30 35)
> #a.grep: -> $a { all($a > 20, $a %% 5) }
(25 30 35)
> #a.grep: -> $a {$a > 20 && $a %% 5}
(25 30 35)
Golfed
my &or = * == 1 || * == 2 ;
my &and = * == 1 && * == 2 ;
say .signature, .(1), .(2)
for &or, ∧
displays:
(;; $whatevercode_arg_1 is raw)TrueFalse
(;; $whatevercode_arg_4 is raw)FalseTrue
I still don't know what's going on [ed: that is, I didn't at the time I wrote this paragraph; I kept what I wrote in this answer as the mystery unfolded], but it's clear that the signature is for just one arg and the result is as per just the right hand expression for the &and and the left hand for the &or which means the code doesn't seem to have, er, left the result that's, er, right. Investigation continues... (and no, I'm not det remiker).
Mystery solved
So, it looks like the logical ops (&&, ||, and, or, etc.) don't do Whatever-currying. Which is fair enough given that "not all operators and syntactic constructs curry * (or Whatever-stars) to WhateverCode". Logical, even, given their nature. They probably ought to be added to the table of exceptions on that page though.
In the meantime, operators like == do Whatever curry. Again, that's fair enough given "subexpressions may impose their own Whatever star rules".
So it makes sense that &or and &and turn in to...
Aha! Got it. The * == 1 and * == 2 are evaluated at compile-time and turn into WhateverCodes. As WhateverCodes they are just bits of code. They are defined. They are True. (This ignores calling them at run-time.) Then along comes the && and evaluates to the right hand WhateverCode. (The || would evaluate to its left hand WhateverCode.)
Hence the behavior we see.
A solution
Per prompting by #HåkonHægland, the code that would work is therefore code that doesn't rely on logical ops Whatever-currying, i.e.:
my #a = 1,12,15,20,25,30,35,37;
say #a.grep: { $_ > 20 && $_ %% 5 } # (25 30 35)
Now what?
Now we have to figure out what doc edits to propose...
Actually, before we do that, confirm that logical ops are supposed to not Whatever-curry...
And to start that ball rolling, I just trawled the results of a search for TimToady comments on #perl6 about "currying" (there were none on #perl6-dev), looking for ones pertinent to the case we have here.
First, one from 2017 that's arguably relevant to any doc edits:
the design docs actually try to avoid the word "currying" ... but it's hard to get people to use words differently than they do
Next, one from 2015 about && and || and such:
|| and && and such are really control flow operators, turned rather rapidly into 'if' and 'unless' ... those ops can be curried with .assuming, I assume
And finally a couple from 2010 that also seem potentially important (though perhaps one or more are no longer applicable?):
all operators autocurry a WhateverCode, whether or not they curry a Whatever
I think we can keep the current mechanism as a fallback for operators that still want to curry at run time
> my $d = * + * + *
> $d.arity
3
> my $e = * == 1 || * == 2 || * == 3
> $e.arity
1
as the doc say:
Returns the minimum number of positional arguments that must be passed in order to call the code object.
so I think the all three star in * == 1 || * == 2 || * == 3 is the same thing.
> my $e = * == 1 && * == 2 && * > 3
> $e(1)
False
> $e(2)
False
> $e(3)
False
> $e(4)
True
Related
Isn't order of execution generally from left to right in Raku?
my #a = my #b = [9 , 3];
say (#a[1] - #a[0]) == (#b[1] R- #b[0]); # False {as expected}
say (#a.pop() - #a.pop()) == (#b.pop() R- #b.pop()); # True {Huh?!?}
This is what I get in Rakudo(tm) v2020.12 and 2021.07.
The first 2 lines make sense, but the third I can not fathom.
It is.
But you should realize that the minus infix operator is just a subroutine under the hood, taking 2 parameters that are evaluated left to right. So when you're saying:
$a - $b
you are in fact calling the infix:<-> sub:
infix:<->($a,$b);
The R meta-operator basically creates a wrap around the infix:<-> sub that reverses the arguments:
my &infix:<R->($a,$b) = &infix:<->.wrap: -> $a, $b { nextwith $b, $a }
So, if you do a:
$a R- $b
you are in fact doing a:
infix:<R->($a,$b)
which is then basically a:
infix:<->($b,$a)
Note that in the call to infix:<R-> in your example, $a become 3, and $b becomes 9 because the order of the arguments is processed left to right. This then calls infix:<->(3,9), producing the -6 value that you would also get without the R.
It may be a little counter-intuitive, but I consider this behaviour as correct. Although the documentation could probably use some additional explanation on this behaviour.
Let me emulate what I assumed was happening in line 3 of my code prefaced with #a is the same as #b is 9, 3 (big number then little number)
(#a.pop() - #a.pop()) == (#b.pop() R- #b.pop())
(3 - 9) == (3 R- 9)
( -6 ) == ( 6 )
False
...That was my expectation. But what raku seems to be doing is
(#a.pop() - #a.pop()) == (#b.pop() R- #b.pop())
#R meta-op swaps 1st `#b.pop()` with 2nd `#b.pop()`
(#a.pop() - #a.pop()) == (#b.pop() - #b.pop())
(3 - 9) == (3 - 9)
( -6 ) == ( -6 )
True
The R in R- swaps functions first, then calls the for values. Since they are the same function, the R in R- has no practical effect.
Side Note: In fuctional programming a 'pure' function will return the same value every time you call it with the same parameters. But pop is not 'pure'. Every call can produce different results. It needs to be used with care.
The R meta op not only reverses the operator, it will also reverse the order in which the operands will be evaluated.
sub term:<a> { say 'a'; '3' }
sub term:<b> { say 'b'; '9' }
say a ~ b;
a
b
ab
Note that a happened first.
If we use R, then b happens first instead.
say a R~ b;
b
a
ba
The problem is that in your code all of the pop calls are getting their data from the same source.
my #data = < a b a b >;
sub term:<l> { my $v = #data.shift; say "l=$v"; return $v }
sub term:<r> { my $v = #data.shift; say "r=$v"; return $v }
say l ~ r;
l=a
r=b
ab
say l R~ r;
r=a
l=b
ab
A way to get around that is to use the reduce meta operator with a list
[-](#a.pop, #a.pop) == [R-](#a.pop, #a.pop)
Or in some other way make sure the pop operations happen in the order you expect.
You could also just use the values directly from the array without using pop.
[-]( #a[0,1] ) == [R-]( #a[2,3] )
Let me emulate what happens by writing the logic one way for #a then manually reversing the operands for #b instead of using R:
my #a = my #b = [9 , 3];
sub apop { #a.pop }
sub bpop { #b.pop }
say apop - apop; # -6
say bpop - bpop; # -6 (operands *manually* reversed)
This not only appeals to my sense of intuition about what's going on, I'm thus far confused why you were confused and why Liz has said "It may be a little counter-intuitive" and you've said it is plain unintuitive!
I am trying to do this simple while loop but it's not working. The compiler is not giving any type of error or warning but when i try to run my function it ends up in an infinite loop:
let example x =
let k = ref x in
while (!k > 42) do
if ( (!k mod 5) == 0) then (
k:= !k/2
);
done;
if(!k<42) then (
Printf.printf "k is less than 42"
);
if(!k == 42) then (
Printf.printf "k is equal to 42"
)
;;
Well, your loop only modifies !k when !k mod 5 = 0. If !k isn't divisible by 5, it will never change in value. This suggests that the loop will either run 0 times or will run an infinite number of times.
You don't show any calls to example, but any call where you pass a value > 42 and not a multiple of 5 should loop infinitely it seems to me.
By the way, this is what #user2864740 was trying to point out. 43 is a value > 42 that's not divisible by 5.
(As a side comment, you should use = to compare values for equality. The == operator in OCaml is useful in limited cases. This often causes problems for people coming from other languages.)
I've been trying to exercise my Perl 6 chops by looking at some golfing problems. One of them involved extracting the bits of an integer. I haven't been able to come up with a succinct way to write such an expression.
My "best" tries so far follow, using 2000 as the number. I don't care whether the most or least significant bit comes first.
A numeric expression:
map { $_ % 2 }, (2000, * div 2 ... * == 0)
A recursive anonymous subroutine:
{ $_ ?? ($_ % 2, |&?BLOCK($_ div 2)) !! () }(2000)
Converting to a string:
2000.fmt('%b') ~~ m:g/./
Of these, the first feels cleanest to me, but it would be really nice to be able to generate the bits in a single step, rather than mapping over an intermediate list.
Is there a cleaner, shorter, and/or more idiomatic way to get the bits, using a single expression? (That is, without writing a named function.)
The easiest way would be:
2000.base(2).comb
The .base method returns a string representation, and .comb splits it into characters - similar to your third method.
An imperative solution, least to most significant bit:
my $i = 2000; say (loop (; $i; $i +>= 1) { $i +& 1 })
The same thing rewritten using hyperoperators on a sequence:
say (2000, * +> 1 ...^ !*) >>+&>> 1
An alternative that is more useful when you need to change the base to anything above 36, is to use polymod with an infinite list of that base.
Most of the time you will have to reverse the order though.
say 2000.polymod(2 xx *);
# (0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1)
say 2000.polymod(2 xx *).reverse;
say [R,] 2000.polymod(2 xx*);
# (1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0)
So Im using a simple if statement to increase an object's speed when an score is reached. Im using a very simple if statement that doesnt work. In this context, "pigSpeed" controls the velocity of the object.
float difference = (self.view.bounds.size.height/4) - flyingPig.center.x;
score += -(int)difference;
if (score % 1000 == 0 & score > 0)
{
pigSpeed++;
NSLog(#"pigfaster");
}
I know the score works properly, as it is displayed, as it appears, but the if statement just wont work and nothing happens. What am I doing wrong. I can add more code if needed.
& is the bitwise and operator; && is the logical and that you mean to use here. Your if statement should actually read:
if (score % 1000 == 0 && score > 0)
Further to what #victor ronin said...
float difference = ( self.view.bounds.size.height / 4.0f ) - flyingPig.center.x;
int newScore = score + difference ;
if ( newScore > 0 && ( newScore / 1000 > score / 1000 ) )
{
// did thousands place increment?
++pigSpeed;
}
score = newScore ;
I agree with andyvn22 - you should use && instead of &. However, there is one more problem.
Let's say you have score = 999
after you calculate difference and it's difference = -5
Your score will become 1004. 1004 % 1000 will be 4 (not a zero)
I think you should change your condition some way that even if you jump over 1000 you still increase a speed.
I had to give just a bit of leeway so 'if (score % 1000 == 2 && score > 999)'
So i am trying to create a program that can find a number that can be divided by numbers 1-20. I know that i will have to use the following simple code concepts:
I know how loops work and how to create a loop that runs until a condition is met. Is there a simple was to run a loop until several conditions are met?
while ( condition1 && condition2 && condition3... ) {}
or
for ( int i = 0; i < n && condition1 && condition2... ) {}
Obviously these will loop while the conditions are true, not until the conditions are met. Its a simple change in the logic though to get the result you want
EDIT
Ane example of the kind of loop youre looking for could be like:
int number = ...;//initialized somewhere, this is what we're checking
BOOL divisible = YES;
for ( int i = 1; i <= 20 && divisible; ++i )
{
if ( (number % i) != 0 )
divisible = NO;//not divisible by i
}
Good answers in play, but I think it's good to mention the break operator in this discussion. Any loop, at any time, can be terminated using this operator. This can be helpful if you do not know all of the parameters which might go out-of-bounds, and you want to have a way of breaking the loop for reasons you may not have explicitly anticipated (i.e. perhaps your connection to a resource is no longer available...)
NSError *error = nil;
while(true) {
// run your app
if(error) {
break;
}
}
If a number is divisible by all numbers from 1 to 20 then it is divisible by the LCM of 1 to 20 so divisibility test is if(!(n%232792560)).
Further if m = pq | n then p|n, q|n so to explicitly test you only need to check for divisibility by primes. i.e if the number is not even then there is no need to check for divisibility by 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 or 20. This reduces the test to the number being congruent to the 8th primorial = 9699690
OK, perhaps on second reading not as explicit as I should like: the expanded test looks like (by de Morgan's theorem)
if(!(n%19 || n%17 || n%16 || n%13 || n%11 || n%9 || n%7 || n%5))
// number is divisible by 1..20